ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2024
Impact of type and position of abutment connection on microstrain distribution: an
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of Non-Engaging Abutments Used for Multi-Unit Screw-Retained Fixed Prosthesis.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Influence of Digital Manufacturing and Abutment Design on Full-Arch Implant Prostheses-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND
methods4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed.
resultsBoth non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05).
conclusionThe types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.